User talk:Fearingpredators

Edit warring at King Cobra
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at King Cobra. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." Do you understand that?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Article
You made a scan of the page, that is a start, Fearingpredators. However, you still aren't communicating with me. Also, the mentioned in the scan talks of the Chinese cobra (species naja atra), not a Chinese caught King Cobra (species Ophiophagus hannah), as you misleadingly suggest in the article. It says nothing about the of the species Ophiophagus hannah (the King cobra), so why would you quote the  of the species naja atra (Chinese cobra, NOT "Chinese king cobra" which is a totally different and unrelated species - they aren't even part of the same genus) as being the King Cobra's  rating? You can go to the article of the Chinese cobra (naja atra) and put this bit of data, but it is completely irrelevant to the king cobra article. The of the Chinese cobra has absolutely no business being in the article of the King cobra, which is a totally unrelated species. So because that is clear and obvious mistake, I will be taking that out of the article. The Chinese cobra (naja atra) is a species which is completely unrelated to the King cobra (Ophiophagus hannah). The only relation they have to each other is that they are both elapids, but they share that relation with many other elapids: kraits, mambas, taipans, and many others. As regards to the black mamba article - it is a fine article. Well-written, well-sourced, and objective/factual. Austin Stevens has on numerous occasions claimed the black mamba to be the deadliest and most feared snake in the world. If you don't like Austin Stevens opinion, then I can refer you to other herpetologists who claim the same: Dr. John Haynes Brown, Dr. Latifi, Dr. Christensen (who dedicated his life researching and studying venomous African snakes, particularly Sub-Saharan species), Grant Chapman, and others. Dr. Christensen in particular witnessed how deadly the black mamba was during the 1950's and 1960's - he saw the 100% mortality rate. At the time when there wasn't antivenom or proper medical treatment (ventilation, symptomatic relief with the use of drugs, etc) no one survived a black mamba bite. If you were bitten, you died. Bastian (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see in your scan where it claims that the KC has a of 0.34 mg/kg weight. However, that is not consistent with the vast majority of venom toxicity studies. You also misleadingly claim this: "Yet, in a recent toxicology study, the LD50 value of Chinese king cobra venom was found to be 0.34 mg/kg" - that is false. First of all, it wasn't a "toxicology study" as you claim. It was simply a statement from a rather old (1990), not recent, book. Where did the author(s) get this  value? Did they get this from a single specimen which they caught? It doesn't appear like they quoted any particular study or research paper. This is the problem with that value. It doesn't have back-up. All toxicological studies list the KC's venom toxicity at over 1.31 mg/kg (this is the most toxic value we know of). The MUCH more recent study which we have lists it at 1.7-1.8 mg/kg, which is consistent with what most studies list the value as. The  of 0.34 mg/kg is simply a statement in a book - we don't know the source of this and it is definitely not a "toxicology study" as you claim - it is a statement in a book without a source. Plus, we have newer and more recent actual toxicology studies which lists it as 1.7-1.8 mg/kg. So it is that which we have to keep in the article. Bastian (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So I finally cleaned up the "Venom" section of the King Cobra article. It is now objective, factual, and grammatically correct. This is how an article should be. You reverting it back to what it was will only get you blocked again, or worse, banned. So before you edit anything I highly suggest you begin communication with me ASAP. The way I have the "Venom" section now is very good and I expect it to remain this way. Bastian (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Another thing, I was given permission to edit the article by the very same Administrator that blocked you, so for your sake, I'd be very careful about reverting it back. It's in your interest to first get involved in a discussion with me, instead of clearing your talk page and ignoring me every time I attempt to communicate with you. Bastian (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This part appears in the “Chinese venomous snakes” section showing the details of numerous Chinese venomous snakes, so the king cobras were caught in China. As you can see in the two pages, the left hand side is p.253 which is talking about Naja atra (as you can see “Chinese cobra” is stated on the taxonomy part below) with the LD50 0.53 mg/kg and the right hand side is p.255 which is talking about the king cobra. with the LD50 of 0.34 mg/kg. There is no misleading as the values do show that king cobras are more venomous than the Chinese cobra based on this LD50 test in mice. You are able to see the whole list of reference, including the names of the experts and the institutes at the back of the section, if you have gone to library and read it. Different localities do be able to have a significance effect on the toxicity of the species, let alone the fact that venom toxicity on snakes mice and humans will be different. So claiming that the venom is “weak” is confused. Moreover, an Indian herpetologist is nearing the completion of a revision of the species throughout its entire range that will undoubtedly lead to it becoming several separate geographical species (venomous snakes of the world P.96 the first few sentences). I don’t think you have the right to decide whether it is a toxicology test and this is obviously insulting the authors and the experts of the book. Can I suspect your source stating that the king cobra has a LD50 1.91 mg/kg? Yes, I know that other tests showed that the king cobra possesses a high value compared with many other elapids. So, I’m going to state “Little is known about its venom. Many tests suggest that the LD50 value of the king cobra is 1.31 to 1.93 mg/kg. Yet, in a toxicology study, the LD50 of Chinese-caught king cobra venom was found to be 0.34 mg/kg which is smaller (more venomous in mice) than that of several Naja species found in the same habitat, such as the Naja atra…” Traditional thought doesn’t provide that things can’t change. You are contradicted by your own source twice as at the beginning, you claimed that the black mamba possesses a LD50 which is among top 10 and is “virulently toxic”. Yet, the source ranks it as 23. Then, you believed that there is certainly no cobra species possesses more toxic venom than mambas, “especially the black mamba”. Again, your source backfired you since it lists that the N.atra has a smaller value than the black mamba… I have cited more than one sources supporting a single bite from the king cobra can cause death in 15 minutes while the average death time recorded is between 30-45 minutes after envenomation. Why did you remove it? This can be regarded as vandalism. 75% mortality rate source was cited by other users at a very early version and has been approved by many administrators and editors. I put the 50-60% rate in the article as well. You do not have the right to select which references should be stayed or eliminated. “many bites involved nonfatal amount” has the same meaning of the 50% rate but was contradicted by other reports, like the one which shows that 2/3 of the victims bitten by KC were severe envenomated while 1/3 was moderated envenomated but all of them were dire and life-threatening. Venomous snakes of the world states that 12 mg of the king cobra venom is estimated to be lethal to humans. Many experts do admit that these lethal human doses are mainly deduced from LD50. Snake bite cases are studied by clinical research which they don’t mainly emphasize the exact lethal doses but the venom effects on humans. You typed the lethal human doses 10-15 mg and make it sounds a certain in the black mamba article. So, I’m going to type the 12 mg in king cobra article as it is stated in the book Venomous snakes of the world (p.96 the third paragraph). Austin official website only states that the black mamba is the most feared snakes he thought and the B.asper is the most aggressive he met, so citing this reference to support the statement is confused. Many other herpetologists, including Austin himself (in his KING COBRA RESEARCH documentary) claimed that the king cobra is among the most dangerous list (Venomous snakes of the world p. 96 as well). Another thing is that the statement “in some extreme cases…died within minutes” in black mamba article is exaggerated as 20 minutes is the “extreme case” and the reference cited is the national geo. website which doesn’t claim that. In fact, the statement in this website “death usually occurs within 20 minutes” has been regarded as exaggeration in the talk page of the black mamba article (see the middle part). I’m going to type the above information. I have informed an administrator and waiting for his reply and judgment about the accuracy of these articles.

By the way, you said this is an encyclopedia and you are professional in this aspect. Yet, what I see from your act is that you are trying to eliminate every "opponent" to make way for your "super black mamba". User:Fearingpredators (talk) 5:07 25 September 2011


 * Your last statement should be directed towards yourself. I only report facts, not my own mythical views of a particular animal. I have cleaned up the "Venom" section. Bring me a source which claims your 75% mortality rate and I'll gladly put it up, but there is no such thing. The way I have it now covers everything. It covers your "0.34 mg/kg" passing statement in an old 1990 book. I brought 3 other sources (actual toxicology studies) which all claim similar for the king cobra (a range of 1.6-1.93 mg/kg). This is a known fact. Even Terence Davidson clearly states that the king cobra has a very weak venom, so the passing statement from your 1990 book is just that: a statement without a source. Where did they come up with the 0.34 mg/kg value? It's just a passing statement without a source. Just because it's written in a book, it doesn't mean diddly. You are an amateur by the very definition of the word. If you don't make constructive edits to this article, like I have made, you will only be blocked again, or worse, banned this time. You better be very, very careful. Everything in the "Venom" section is sourced now. If you bring back the "75% mortality rate, 15 minute to death, and 30-45 minute average to die" crappolla without any scientific sources that verify exactly what you have stated, then I will be left with no choice but to report you. As of right now, everything in the "Venom" section is referenced and accurate. Any changes without scientific sources to verify your claims will be considered disruptive editing and I will report you. As to the black mamba, you know nothing about the snake. Many herpetologists, including Dr. Christensen have witnessed and written much of how quickly death occurs after a black mamba bite. He witnessed all of it in his field research and studies back in the 50's and 60's, so don't pretend to know more about this subject then me. You don't. You have a mythical view of the king cobra and you want your conjecture and myths to be layed out in an encyclopedia article as fact. That is not going to happen, not as long as I am editing here. You are already in a lot of hot water, so I suggest you really stop editing either article. You've already been found out to have been editing under an IP and a different username (Jasper put a sockpuppet investigation on you). So I'd be very careful in reverting or editing sourced work. Bastian (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you are set off when I mention some vital points. Please notice that you do not own the article and have no right to eliminate or select the sources. It is not stated by me but other user's reference. Now, I can obviously see that everything isn't "scientific, well-written, well-referenced" unless you think it is. You can go and report this case. I really look forward to seeing administrators' response and I told you that I have informed an administrator who have checked these articles for a long time. Let's see what they think and the articles are not yours. User:Fearingpredators (talk) 5:07 25 September 2011
 * I really prefer Bastian's version as being more formal and sourced. Actually, WP:OWN applies to both of you. When your block expires, please do not resume edit warring or you will be blocked again for a longer period. Just a note to both of you: To make other users understand you better, please keep your comments short.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with the WP:OWN and I don't think he has the right to eliminate or select references. By the way, I have done some adjustments and added back the information with related references to the article king cobra which were deleted. If there is any problems or failure in negotiation, I will report the case instead of edit warring. User:Fearingpredators (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fearingpredators, okay I am going to dice and slice all your claims and your references right here once and for all. You didn't "do some references and added back information" - you reverted it back to what you had it before. Now you claim:


 * A single bite from it can cause the death of an adult human in 15 minutes and your reference this, which doesn't claim such a thing at all and this NYTimes article written by Sean B Carroll, lol, who is he? The new guru on herpetology. That second one is NOT a scientific source, it is a news paper article written by some schmuck columnist who is as clueless as you seem to be. The University of San Diego's Terence Davidson says that symptoms don't begin to MANIFEST UNTIL 15 MINUTES LATER Check it out here.

On to the next now:


 * "though the average death time recorded is between 30–45 minutes after envenomation." (this statement just kills me, lol) and your references are here, which doesn't claim that at all and this: Freiberg, Dr. Marcos; Walls (1984). The World of Venomous Animals. New Jersey: TFH. ISBN 0876665679 (again, unverifiable and I highly doubt it claims such a bold claim unless of course it's a children's book).

So as you can see your "15 minutes to death" and your "30-45 minute average death time" are both debunked. I mean even the University of San Diego claims that symptoms don't begin to MANIFEST UNTIL 15 MINUTES LATER Check it out here. I know you hate this, but that is just too bad. I am sick of having BS and references that don't match up to the claims in the article. That's not all though, I am far from done.


 * "Yet, in a toxicology study, the LD50 of the Chinese-caught specimens was found to be 0.34 mg/kg" (this one has me in tears, seriously) and you reference this. That is NOT a toxicology study. Do you know what a study is? Where is the data to that study? That is a point blank statement from a book. We don't even know the source of that statement and that value. It is NOT a toxicology study and as such I am going to take it out and put back the actual studies that I had put there.

Now on to your next ridiculous statement:


 * "The mortality rate from a bite can statistically be 75%" and your references are "Capula, Massimo; Behler (1989). Simon & Schuster's Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of the World. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671690981."(again, unverifiable. BTW, which changed? how come you didn't list this as a source before? Can you scan this please?) and this, which does NOT claim a 75% mortality rate AT ALL.

So what now? Why did you destroy the "Venom" section of the article by taking out real studies and real references, not references that don't claim what the article claims? What gives? Why? What is your motive? Bastian (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your new changes at King Cobra
RIght after your block expired, you went back to edit warring at King Cobra, making this change. You may be able to avoid another block if you will immediately undo this change. Wait until the other editors on the talk page agree that your material is correct before making any more controversial changes. If you ignore this request, you may be blocked again. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your time is running out, Fearingpredators. So make a move - either undo your changes or face being blocked again as Admin EdJohnston has told you. Bastian (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

With your permission, EdJohnston I have reverted it back to the way it was just like you wanted. I also have no doubt that Fearingpredators saw this, but chose to ignore it so that he doesn't have to revert it back despite the fact that you asked him to make the change or face another block. At the time you asked him to do this, he is usually always on - but what happened on this day? Consensus is swinging in my direction as Jasper Deng also believes my version is the better one. --Bastian (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Other unreal claims
I would really like to know where you got the idea that "12 mg" of king cobra venom is enough to kill a human? That is a completely unrealistic number based on what we know about this species, the components of its venom, and the overall toxicity of that venom. If the lethal human dose is "12 mg" as you claim (btw, herpetologist's never give one straight number for this, they always give a range: ie. 10-15 mg for black mamba or 3-5 mg for saw-scaled viper, etc), then that would put the value of the king cobra's venom lower than some of the more venomous species of true cobras (genus naja), the death adder's, tiger snakes, some sub-species of mambas, and even lower than some sub-species of krait - making it one of the most venomous elapids out there, which is completely untrue as we have repeatedly seen in one toxicology study after the other. Since we know that the king cobra delivers around 200-500 mg of venom per bite on average, then an untreated bite to a human would be lethal everytime, even if the bite delivered below average amounts of venom (say just 150 mg), if the lethal human dose was "12 mg" (so the mortality rate would be 100%). But we know that isn't true thanks to modern day technology and research studies. Mortality rate varies, with most bites being non-fatal and the highest reported mortality rate for this species is 50-60% according to research done at the University of Adelaide. That would mean that it is impossible for the lethal human dose to be "12 mg" as you suggested. Forgive me for speculating on what the lethal human dose is, but if a king cobra delivers 200 to 500 mg of venom per bite on average and most bites are "non-fatal", then I'd say that the lethal human dose is much, much higher than your "12 mg". The lethal human dose would in all likelihood be somewhere around 300-450 mg. It is my belief that you simply made up the number "12 mg" as the lethal human dose and then you put some bogus reference next to it. This further shows how little you care for the facts and how little you care about contributing to Wikipedia in an honest and constructive manner. You have a great imagination, but your own views, opinions, and imaginations about the king cobra are not fact. On Wikipedia, we report only the facts not the myths or our opinions and views. Bastian (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine if you don't believe me. Just get that book and have a look on the page. I believe that you can easily get one in bookstore or library as it is quite prevalent.If you tell me that it is a children book again as what you did to the other books, I have nothing to say with you. By the way, snake venom may not have the same toxicity or even effects on humans as those on mice or snakes(their prey) and we will never know what the snake is thinking when it bites.


 * Yes, I know that mice and humans are different species. However, the studies done on mice are the best data we have on snake venom toxicity. It is a tool for us to use, so yes I'll be the first to admit that it's most definitely not perfect but it will do for now (as far as toxicity goes). That's why some of the most venomous snakes in the world (ie. Eastern brown snake [species Pseudonaja textilis] bite victims haved survived untreated bites; while untreated bites from the less venomous black mamba are known to be 100% fatal). So does that mean the black mamba (species dendroaspis polylepis) venom is probably more toxic to humans than an Eastern brown snake's? We don't know. Based on toxicology studies on mice, no the Eastern Brown snake is far more venomous. But based on actual record of bites/fatality ratio, it would seem like yes the black mamba is more toxic to humans. However, we don't know for sure. We just know that without any kind of medical treatment (respiratory ventilation, antivenom, etc) all black mamba bites are fatal. The same is true of only one other snake and that snake is the Coastal taipan (species Oxyuranus scutellatus scutellatus). No other species of snake has a 100% mortality rate except those two. There are some that have very high mortality rates such as the members of the krait family (genus Bungarus) and those belonging to the genus Echis. In regards to the king cobra, all known  studies place the venom toxicity of the KC at around 1.7-1.9 mg/kg. Records from bites show that most bites are non-fatal, so very low mortality rate. The highest seen is the University of Adelaide study of 50-60%, which any herpetologist would tell you is very likely the very maximum for a king cobra. A 50-60% mortality rate for KC is probably associated with high volumes of venom (likely the higher end of their average of 500-600 mg). If I had to guess (based on the University of Adelaide study), king cobra's would achieve a mortality rate of 90% (+/- 2-4) if the species as a whole would deliver over 800-900 mg of venom on average per bite (so double what they average in reality). Bastian (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Puff adder1.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Puff adder1.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Cape cobra 1.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cape cobra 1.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Puff adder.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Puff adder.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Capecobra.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Capecobra.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Cape cobra.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cape cobra.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aizen Kyōka Suigetsu.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Aizen Kyōka Suigetsu.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)